Bombay High Court
Satyam Uttamrao Mokale And Others vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 6 May, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp2388.15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION Nos. 2388, 2771, 2773, 2781, 2794, 2705, 2738, 2739
& 2740 OF 2015.
**********
(1) WRIT PETITION No. 2388 OF 2015.
1. Vikas Ashokrao Dekate
Aged 33 Years, Occupation - Service,
R/O Sukhkarta, New LIC Nagar Colony,
Near Anusaya Mangal Karyalaya,
At Post. Nalwadi, district Wardha 442 001.
2. Sanjiv Rambhauji Rokade
Aged 34 Years, Occupation - Service,
R/O Hari om Nagar, Behind Anjana Mata
Mandir, House No. 24, Ward No. 3, Alodi,
District Wardha.
3. Sandip Moreshwar Sawarkar
Aged 32 Years, Occupation - Service,
R/O At Post Wasi, Tah. Samudrapur
District Wardha.
4. Deepak Bhaurao Bhosale
Aged 24 Years, Occupation - Service,
R/O At Karanji (Bhoge), Post- Kharangana Gode,
Tah - Distt Wardha.
5. Pavan Vijayrao Khodke
Aged 34 Years, Occupation - Service,
R/O Punjabrao Deshmukh Colony, Arvi Road
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
2
Wardha.
6. Ashish Babarao Ghogare
Aged 27 Years, Occupation - Service,
R/O C/O Kashiram D. Ghogare, Ashish B. Ghogare
Gadbole Plot, Behind Shriram Tower, Dabki Rd.,
Old City, District Akola. 444 002.
7. Awdhut Vinayakrao Mungale
Aged 29 Years, Occupation - Service,
R/O Primary School Road, Ward No. 1 Gajanan Nagar
Pipri Meghe, Wardha.
8. Sachin Laxman Wankhede
Aged 32 Years, Occupation - Service,
R/O Gaurakshan Ward No. 33, Near Sahare House
No. 284, Wardha.
9. Swapnil Ashok Karwade
Aged 25 Years, Occupation - Service,
R/O Samrat Nagar, Behind Hindi Vishwa Vidyalaya
Ring Road, Pipri Meghe, Wardha. 442 001.
10. Ganesh Kishorrao Gonde
Aged 26 Years, Occupation - Service,
R/O Rashtrabhasha Road, Hind Nagar, Ward No. 37
Wardha.
11. Kamlesh Ashok Meshram
Aged 31 Years, Occupation - Service,
R/O Samata Nagar, Ward No. 4, Sawangi Meghe
Wardha.
12. Shrikant Rameshrao Dhotkar
Aged 31 Years, Occupation - Service,
R/O Infront Of Ayurvedic College, Dhanwantari
Nagar, Dastur Nagar Road
Amravati 444 606.
13. Sunil Bhaurao Chafle
Aged 41 Years, Occupation - Service,
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
3
R/O C/O Diliprao Satpute, Krushna Nagar, Near
Magan Sangralaya, Wardha 442 001.
14. Swapnil Sunilrao Kulkarni
Aged 29 Years, Occupation - Service,
R/O C/O S. G. Kulkarni Deshmukh Plot. Civil Lines
Khamgaon, distt Buldhana 444 303.
15. Nikesh Ramkrushna Shirbhate
Aged 25 Years, Occupation - Service,
R/O At Post Pahur (DABHA), Taq. Babhulgaon
District Yeotmal 445 101
16. Rupesh Narayanrao Bharaskar
Aged 27 Years, Occupation - Service,
R/O Netaji Chowk, Malipura, Near New Post Office
Ner, Distt Yeotmal 445 102.
17. Chetan Keshavaro Mankar
Aged 25 Years, Occupation - Service,
R/O Near Ayodhya Nagar, Pkv Colony, Malkapur
Akola, Distt. Akola 444105.
18. Swapnil Milindkumar Lautre
Aged 28 Years, Occupation - Service,
R/O Sai Nagar, Behind Ganesh Vyas Mandir
Bodkhe Layout< Wardha 442 001.
19. Nitin Eknathrao Polade
Aged 37 Years, Occupation - Service,
R/O Mahadev Ward, Gandhi Chowk, Tah. Arvi
District Wardha.
20. Yogesh Prabhakarrao Dhurat
Aged 28 Years, Occupation - Service,
R/O C/O Awdhut V. Mungale Primary School Road
Ward No. 1, Gajanan Nagar, Pipri Meghe, Wardha.
21. Kishor Shriram More
Aged 23 Years, Occupation - Service,
R/O Puja Prashikshan Kendra, Saoji Layout,
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
4
Udasibaba Nagar, Sutala Khurd, Khamgaon
Distt. Buldhana 444 303
22. Suhas Muralidhar Shahare
Aged 28 Years, Occupation - Service,
R/O LIG 226, Plot No.188, Old Mhada Colony,
Post Manas Mandir, Sindhi Meghe,
Wardha 442001
23. Jitendra Shankarrao Kambale
Aged 33 Years, Occupation - Service,
R/O At Post Shekapur (MOZARI)
Tq. Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha ........ PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
1. State Of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Rural Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Maharashtra Rural Roads Development
Association, through its Chairman and
Chief Secretary Of State Of Maharashtra
Rural Development and Water Conservation
Department, Mantralaya
Mumbai -32.
3. Superintending Engineer,
Pradhan Mantrai Gram Sadak Yojna and
Maharashtra Rural Roads Development
Association, Bandham Sankul,
Civil Lines, Nagpur
4. Executive Engineer,
Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
5
and Maharashtra Rural Roads
Development Association, Civil
Lines, PWD Campus, Wardha.
5. Zilla Parishad, through its
Chief Executive Officer,
Wardha. ..... RESPONDENTS.
WITH
(2) WRIT PETITION No. 2771 OF 2015.
1. Prabhakar S/O Shamrao Padewar
Aged about 40 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Plot No.19/B, Vivekanand Nagar,
Wadgaon Ward, Tq. and Dist. Chandrapur.
2. Shaikh Jafar Ahmed Samad
Aged about 32 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Near Ramala Ralao, Ganj Ward
Tq. And Dist. Chandrapur
3. Darshan Dishore Shingre
Aged about 30 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Post Tq. Chimur,
Distt. Chandrapur.
4. Mahesh Ashok Wadhai
Aged about 30 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Waghoba Chowk, Near Bank Of Maharashtra
Tukum, Tq. & Distt. Chandrapur.
5. Suraj Sudarshan Bonde
Aged about 24 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Shrikrupa Colony, Jagannath Baba Nagar,
Datala Road, Tq. and Dist. Chandrapur
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
6
6. Shaikh Firoz Daud Sheikh
Aged about 24 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Sister Colony, Near Hanuman Mandir,
Chandrapur, Tq. and Distt. Chandrapur.
7. Prashant Nilkanth Pudke
Aged about 20 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Sister Colony, Near Hanuman Mandir,
Chandrapur, Tq. and distt. Chandrapur.
8. Rahul Giridhar Bhoyar
Aged about 23 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. State Bank Colony, Gorakshan Ward,
FDCM Road Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur.
9. Prasanna Vyankatesh Gundarwar
Aged about 25 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Kottur Rd. Guppa Ward, At Post Teshil Aheri
Distt. Gadchiroli.
10. Ku. Seema Hetram Katre
Aged about 22 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Post Arjuni, Rawanwadi,
Tehsil and district Gondia.
11. Ku. Madhuri Tejram Khandate
Aged about 30 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Shantinagar, Takiya Ward,
Bhandara, Distt. Bhandara.
12. Krushna Prabhu Dhere
Aged about 24 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Swaraj Nagar, Gholap Classes, Warshi Road,
Beed, Distt. Beed.
13. Pramod Chandrabhan Agarkar
Aged about 28 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Post. Bhishnur, Tq. Narkhed
distt. Nagpur.
14. Manoj Purushottam Modak
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
7
Aged about 35 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Mahatma Phule Nagar, New Sumthana
Tq. Bhadravati, Distt. Chandrapur.
15. Atul Devidas Pote
Aged about 32 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Asolkar Layout, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule,
Moti Umari, Akola, Dist. Akola.
16. Jagdish Ramesh Khobragade
Aged about 34 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Sarode Ward No.4 Near Rohidas Temple,
House No.212, Tq. and dist. Gadchiroli.
17. Narendra Vasantrao Meshram
Aged about 30 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. C/O Leelabai Meshram, Near Samajik Vanikaran
Office, Ward No. 15, Mul,
Distt. Chandrapur.
18. Vijay Rangraoji Kale
Aged about 33 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Post Anjansinghi, Tq. Dhamangaon Rly
Amravati.
19. Hanuman Abaji Gongale
Aged about 33 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Tarda, Post-Wadholi, Tq. Gondpipari
Dist. Chandrapur. ........ PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
1. State Of Maharashtra
Through Its Secretary
Ministry Of Rural Development
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Maharashtra Rural Roads Development
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
8
Association, Through Its Chairman And
Chief Secretary Of State Of Maharashtra
Rural Development And Water Conservation
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. Superintending Engineer,
Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna
and Maharashtra Rural Road Development
Association, Bandham Sankul, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
4. Executive Engineer,
Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna
and Maharashtra Rural Roads
Development Association, Chandrapur.
5. Zilla Parishad
Through Its Chief Executive Officer
Chandrapur. ...... RESPONDENTS.
WITH
(3) WRIT PETITION No. 2773 OF 2015.
1. Ravindra Diwakar Kapgate
Aged about 31 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Post Sendurwafa, Tq. Sakoli
Distt-Bhandara.
2. Deepak Manikrao Vaidya
Aged about 31 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Dawdipar, Post Bela,
Tq. and Distt. Bhandara.
3. Shailesh Madhukar Farkande
Aged about 36 years, Occ - Service,
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
9
R/O. Near Police Station, Behind NG Bar,
Radhakrushna Ward, Bhandara.
4. Pratik Ramesh Tadas
Aged about 24 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Tadas Layout, Arvi Road, Pipri (MEGHE),
Ward No.2, Wardha
5. Yadvendra Ramesh Ukey
Aged about 23 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Murumtola/Halbitola, Nr. Petrol Pump
Tq. Salekasa, distt. Gondia.
6. Dynaneshwar Ravichand Hattimare
Aged about 34 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Khatiya, Tq. And Dist. Gondia
7. Ku. Raksha Tarachand Chawre
Aged about 42 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Near Petrol Pump Thana,
Tq. and Distt. Bhandara.
8. Ku. Shalini Pandurang Raut
Aged about 27 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Ganeshward, Sakoli
Distt- Bhandara.
9. Ku. Shraddha Ashok Dube
Aged about 24 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Makde Nagar, Tumsar
Distt- Bhandara.
10. Pranit Prakash Punse
Aged about 26 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Rahul Nagar, Camp Road, Chapriasipura
Amravati.
11. Pradipsing Vijaysing Rathod
Aged about 27 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. C/O Vijaysingh K. Rathod, Pindekepar,
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
10
At Post Pathri, Tq. Goregaon
Distt- Gondia.
12. Ku. Viju Ratiram Nagmote
Aged about 38 years, Occ - Service,
R/O.C/O.Kartik Sukhdev Kularkar, Tilak Ward
Tq. Monadi, Distt- Bhandara.
13. Ku. Rajni Nanduji Dodke
Aged about 25 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Plot No. 47, Suraksha Nagar, Adhyapak Layout,
Behind Mahabharat Kirana Store, Dattawadi
Nagpur.
14.
Mangesh Manikrao Vaidya
Aged about 27 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Dawdipar, At Post Bela
Distt. Bhandara.
15. Lekhraj Gajanan Mohankar
Aged about 32 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Ram Mandir Ward, Lahari Ashram Road,
Bada Bazar, Bhandara, Tq. Dist. Bhandara.
16. Mahesh Hemraj Durgade
Aged about 31 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Ronga, At Post Lendezari, Tq. Tumsar
Distt- Bhandara.
17. Kunal Kashyap Kamble
Aged about 31 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Plot No. 290, Bank Colony, Nari Road
Nagpur.
18. Ajay Wasudeorao Gajbhiye
Aged about 33 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. 422, Samyak Colony, Greater Kailash Nagar,
Near Mahadeo Khori, Amravati.
19. Tarkesh Shrawan Meshram
Aged about 26 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. New Friends Colony, Khat Road
Bhandara.
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
11
20. Ku. Priyanka Madhukar Kamdi
Aged about 26 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Sant Kabir Ward, Kazi Nagar
Bhandara.
21. Sudhakar Deochand Gaidhane
Aged about 36 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Nehru Ward, Warthi
Distt. Bhandara.
22. Ramsing Bhuwanlal Ruddhe
Aged about 30 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Shivaji Nagar, Khat Road, Khokaral
Bhandara. ...... PETITIONERS.
VERSUS.
1. State Of Maharashtra
Through Its Secretary
Ministry Of Rural Development
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Maharashtra Rural Roads Development
Association, Through Its Chairman And
Chief Secretary Of State Of Maharashtra
Rural Development And Water Conservation
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. Superintending Engineer,
Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna
and Maharashtra Rural Road Development
Association, Bandham Sankul, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
4. Executive Engineer,
Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna
and Maharashtra Rural Roads
Development Association, Chandrapur.
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
12
5. Zilla Parishad
Through Its Chief Executive Officer
Chandrapur. ...... RESPONDENTS.
WITH
(4) WRIT PETITION No. 2781 OF 2015.
1.
Rupesh S/O Wanosa Dighore
Aged about 35 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Kasturba Ward, Wadsa, Tq. Desaiganj Wadsa
Distt. Gadchiroli.
2. Nitin Babusing Rathod
Aged about 31 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Sewadas Krupa Niwas, Ashirwad Nagar,
Chamorshi Road, Gadchiroli.
3. Ravindra Nageshwar Gagapurwar
Aged about 32 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Near Dharmanrao School, At Post Sironcha
Gadchiroli
4. Rajesh Baburaoji Gampawar
Aged about 28 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Indira Ward No.2, At Post Tq. Etapalli
Distt. Gadchiroli.
5. Ku. Geetanjali Ananat Nagrare
Aged about 40 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Plot No. 12, Maharashtra Land Society,
Rajashri Nagar, Beltarodi Rd. Nagpur.
6. Ku. Sangeeta Bhojraj Lanje
Aged about 27 years, Occ - Service,
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
13
R/O. C/O. Bhojrao Baburaoji Lanje, Ganesh Ward,
At Post Sakoli, distt. Bhandara.
7. Kiran Nandkishore Nema
Aged about 32 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Sai Colony, At Post Sihora, Tq. Tumsar
Distt. Bhandara.
8. Chimayananad Vithobaji Motghare
Aged about 31 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Behind Shivaji College, Near Mhada Colony,
Ram Nagar Ward No.19, Gadchiroli.
9. Ravi Rameshrao Shejole
Aged about 29 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Pitruchhaya, Palana Ghar Road, Near Jai Ambe
Kirana Store, Ram Nagar, Buldhana.
10. Rajesh Nilkanth Ganvir
Aged about 39 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Borgaon, At Post Kaulewada Tq. Goregaon
Distt. Gondia.
11. Nitin Madhukarrao Kamble
Aged about 30 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Jamankar Nagar, Infornt Of Hanuman Mandir
Yavatmal, Tq. and Distt. Yavatmal.
12. Bhushan Harihar Godhankar
Aged about 30 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Harimangal Niwas, Near Reliance Petrol Pump,
Kargil Chowk, Mul Road, Gadchiroli.
13. Sudhir Manoharrao Kandikuwar
Aged about 31 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Telangpura, Ward No.2, At Post Chamorshi,
Distt. Gadchiroli.
14. Motiram Deorao Gurnule
Aged about 29 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Post Dhanora, Dist. Gadchiroli
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
14
15. Sarfaroz Khan Chand Khan Pathan
Aged about 27 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Post Gadchiroli
16. Prashant s/o Sudhakarrao Ghadge,
Aged about 30 years, Occ - Service,
r/o. Plot no.77, Dipakmal Layout
Manewada Road, Nagpur. .... PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
1.
State Of Maharashtra
Through Its Secretary
Ministry Of Rural Development
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Maharashtra Rural Roads Development
Association, Through Its Chairman And
Chief Secretary Of State Of Maharashtra
Rural Development And Water Conservation
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. Superintending Engineer,
Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna
and Maharashtra Rural Road Development
Association, Bandham Sankul, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
4. Executive Engineer,
Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna
and Maharashtra Rural Roads
Development Association, Gadchiroli.
5. Zilla Parishad
Through Its Chief Executive Officer
Gadchiroli. ...... RESPONDENTS.
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
15
WITH
(5) WRIT PETITION No. 2794 OF 2015.
1. Arvind S/O Kishanlal Bisen,
Aged about 34 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Post Fulchur Jamindar Wada
Tal. Dist. Gondia
2. Pravin S/O. Mulchand Rahangdale
Aged about 33 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Bhajepar Post-Wadegaon, Tal. Tirora
Distt- Gondia.
3. Bhupesh S/O Vashudeorao Turkar
Aged about 37 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Vivek Colony, Tilak Ward, Balaghat Road
dist. Gondia.
4. Rajesh S/O Sukchand Yele
Aged about 37 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Post Barbaspura, Tah. Tirora
Distt. Gondia.
5. Madanlal S/O. Dulichand Patle
Aged about 32 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Bihriya Post. Karti Bk, Tal. Tirora
Distt. Gondia.
6. Nikhilkumar S/O Zanklal Ratnakar
Aged about 37 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Vivekanand Colony,
Mana Chowk, Civil Lines, Dist. Gondia.
7. Rajeshkumar s/o Shalikram Patle,
Aged about 30 years, Occ - Service,
r/o. At Bhoyartola Gongle post,
Pandhari, Tal. Sadak Arjuni,
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
16
dist. Gondia.
8. Ajit S/O Chandrashekar Thaware
Aged about 27 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Post Boandgaon/Devi, Tal. Arjuni/Mor
Distt- Gondia.
9. Vinod S/O Maniram Jagne
Aged about 26 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. C/O. Irri Post. Navergaon
Distt - Gondia.
10. Hemantkumar S/O Hansulal Lilhare
Aged about 30 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Tikayatpur Post, Gangazari
Tal. Dist. Gondia.
11. Sourabha S/O Siddharth Lokhande
Aged about 24 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Wadi Takali Khadgaon Road
Nagpur - 23.
12. Krishna S/O Waman Chaouhan
Aged about 41 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Baba Bhawan, Near Mata Mandir
Shrinagar, Dist- Gondia.
13. Manoj S/O Shantaram Kale
Aged about 26 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Post Pipla (D.B.) Tah. Saoner
Distt- Nagpur.
14. Jitendra S/O Manoharrao Rewatkar
Aged about 32 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Wadegaon (UMARI), Post Kharsholi
Tah. Narkhed, Dist. Nagpur.
15. Sunita S/O Likhiram Turkar
Aged about 27 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Arjuni Post, Rawanwada
Tal. Dist. Gondia.
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
17
16. Purushottam S/O Tekchand Bisen
Aged about 35 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Kanhartola, Post. Pandharabodi
Tal. Dist. Gondia.
17. Rajesh S/O Chhotelal Bisen
Aged about 26 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Tikayatpur Post, Gangazari
Tal. Dist. Gondia.
18. Chandrashekhar S/O Shivdayal Patle
Aged about 25 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Khurshipar, Post. Thanegaon
Tah. Tirora, distt. Gondia.
19. Falendrakumar S/O Hanslal Mahule
Aged about 40 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Post Nagra, Tah. Dist. Gondia
20. Nilesh s/o Ashok Meshram,
Aged about 28 years, Occ- Service,
r/o. At post Sukali, Tah. Tirora,
Dist. Gondia.
21. Kishor S/O Bhajandas Rangari
Aged about 29 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Post Timezari, Tq. Goregaon
Distt- Gondia.
22. Lalita Df/O Shobhelal Turkar
Aged about 20 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Fulchur, Tah. Dist. Gondia
23. Darshana D/O Bhaorao Wankhede
Aged about 32 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Ambedkar Ward, Wardi Bhandara Road,
Tah. Mohadi, Distt. Bhandara.
24. Bhimraj S/O Bharatram Kumbhare
Aged about 36 years, Occ - Service,
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
18
R/O. At Temni Post Batana, Tah. Dist. Gondia
25. Nitesh S/O Baburao Bhaladhare
Aged about 30 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Ramnagar, Dindayal Ward
Gondia.
26. Mahendra S/O Raghunath Lilhare
Aged about 41 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Chandnitola Post, Nagra
Tah. Dist. Gondia.
27. Sandeep S/O Nilkantha Chute
Aged about 30 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Post Navergaon
Tah. Dist. Gondia.
28. Yograj S/O Narayan Kawale
Aged about 37 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Khadipar, Post. Kurhadi, Tah. Goregaon
Distt- Gondia.
29. Pankaj S/O Radheshyam Dhomne
Aged about 38 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Girola, Post. Pandharabodhi
Tah. Dist. Gondia.
30. Dhanraj S/O Bhayyalal Bhede
Aged about 37 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. aT Bamhni, Post. Borkanar, Tah. Amgaon
Distt. Gondia. ........ PETITIONERS.
VERSUS.
1. State Of Maharashtra
Through Its Secretary
Ministry Of Rural Development
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
19
2. Maharashtra Rural Roads Development
Association, Through Its Chairman And
Chief Secretary Of State Of Maharashtra
Rural Development And Water Conservation
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. Superintending Engineer,
Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna
and Maharashtra Rural Road Development
Association, Bandham Sankul, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
4. Executive Engineer,
Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna
and Maharashtra Rural Roads
Development Association,
Civil Lines, PWD Campus,
Gondia.
5. Zilla Parishad
Through Its Chief Executive Officer
Gondia . ...... RESPONDENTS.
WITH
(6) WRIT PETITION No. 2705 OF 2015.
1. Mahesh S/O Dhnyaneshwar Dambhare
Aged about Years, Occ - Service,
R/O At Post. Vijaygopal Tah. Dewali
Wardha 444236.
2. Chaitali W/O Kuntal Zade
Aged about Years, Occ - Service,
R/O Plot No. 53, Papular Society Manish Nagar
Nagpur 440075.
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
20
3. Amol S/O Ramdas Meshram
Aged about Years, Occ - Service,
R/O Plot No. 60, Shri Resi. Nit Gardan, Shri Nagar
Nagpur 440015.
4. Shirish S/O Pundlikrao Kupte
Aged about Years, Occ - Service,
R/O Plot No. 51, Vidyut Nagar, Jalpurti Colony
V.M.V. Road, Amravati.
5. Ashish S/O Bhaiyyasahab Karale
Aged about Years, Occ - Service,
R/O 131 (B) Pande Layout Khamla
Nagpur.
6. Heeralal S/O Narayan Wasnik
Aged about Years, Occ - Service,
R/O Hiralal Wasnik C/O Eknathji Chamat, Chamat
Bichayat Kendra, 292, Omnagar, Sakkardara
Nagpur 440009.
7. Vijay S/O Mulchand Nandagawali
Aged about Years, Occ - Service,
r/o. At Post Palasgaon, Post. Chikhali Ta. Sadak Arjuni
Dist. Gondia 441806.
8. Umesh S/O Ramkrushna Dhankute
Aged about Years, Occ - Service,
R/O At Post. Rahaki, Tah. Selu
Distt. Wardha.
9. Jitendra S/O Shriram Girare
Aged about Years, Occ - Service,
R/O Plot No. 62, Bandu Soni Layout Gayatri Mandir
Road, Nagpur 440022.
10. Pankaj Pundlikrao Shedame
Aged about Years, Occ - Service,
R/O Plot No. Raut Layout Mansarovar Colony
Sadikbad Mankapur, Nagpur 440030.
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
21
11. Shyam S/O Mrulidhar Kenekar
Aged about Years, Occ - Service,
R/O At Post. Bhadola, Tah. Buldhana 443001.
12. Shyam S/O Sudhakar Bhale
Aged about Years, Occ - Service,
R/O Post Pimpagao Raja, Tah. Khamgoan
Distt. Buldhana 444306.
13. Nilesh S/O Santoshrao Katkar
Aged about Years, Occ - Service,
R/O Plot 23 Ward No. 1, Jai Dhole Nagar,
Chandkapur, Khaparkheda, Tah. Saoner
Dist. Nagpur.
14. Ku. Vibha Pandit Ade
Aged about Years, Occ - Service,
R/O E-502 Nit Complex Gurudeo Nagar
Nagpur.
15. Ku. Bhumika Vishwanath Awadhut
Aged about Years, Occ - Service,
R/O Chunabhatti, Near Ajani, Nagpur.
16. Nilesh Diliprao Thakre
Aged about Years, Occ - Service,
R/O Plot No. 22, Chandak Layout Behind Jaiswal
Mangalkaryalaya IUDP Road Katol
17. Manish Ashokrao Madake
Aged about Years, Occ - Service,
R/O Plot No. 26 Near Dhawad Layout Vasahat
Tah. Katol, Dist. Nagpur.
18. Kailash S/O Dhashrath Sarode
R/O Godhani Railway Near Hanuman Mandir
Nagpur.
19. Sapana Baburao Nitnware
Aged about Years, Occ - Service,
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
22
R/O At Dighi Jahanpur Post. Waki Raypur
Tah. Daryapur, Dist. Amravati 444804.
20. Ku. Kirti Ramchandra Wankhede
Aged about Years, Occ - Service,
R/O 353, Mahalakshmi Nagar, New Narsala Road
Nagpur.
21. Shri Girish Pandharinath Karmarkar
Aged about Years, Occ - Service,
R/O Plot No. 40 Near Ganesh Mandir, New Daimond
Nagar, Nagpur.
22. Ku. Priti Purushottam Moon
Aged about Years, Occ - Service,
R/O 145 Nalanda Nagar, Post. Bhagwan Nagar
Nagpur.
23. Nagesh Digambar Diwan
Aged about Years, Occ - Service,
R/O C/O P D Wardhane 405 Jagat Tower Tilak Nagar
Amravati Road, Nagpur 440010.
24. Mangesh Govind Shingade
Aged about Years, Occ - Service,
R/O 556, Vinoba Bhave Nagar
Nagpur 440017
25. Sandesh Manohar Bagde
Aged about Years, Occ - Service,
R/O 66, Shri Nagar Near NIT Garden
Nagpur 440015.
26. Vivek Purushottam Gourkar
Aged about Years, Occ - Service,
R/O Timki Tin Khamba, Near Klbaswami Vachanalay
Nagpur 440018. ........ PETITIONERS.
VERSUS.
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
23
1. State Of Maharashtra
Through Its Secretary
Ministry Of Rural Development
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Maharashtra Rural Roads Development
Association, Through Its Chairman And
Chief Secretary Of State Of Maharashtra
Rural Development And Water Conservation
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. Superintending Engineer,
Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna
and Maharashtra Rural Road Development
Association, Bandham Sankul, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
4. Executive Engineer,
Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna
and Maharashtra Rural Roads
Development Association,
Sarpanch Bhavan, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
5. Zilla Parishad
Through Its Chief Executive Officer
Nagpur. ...... RESPONDENTS.
WITH
(7) WRIT PETITION No. 2738 OF 2015.
1. Satyam Uttamrao Mokale
Aged about 37 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. IUDP Colony, Pusad Road
Washim.
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
24
2. Jitendra Vitthal Kamble
Aged about 38 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Santaji Nagar, Near Shankar Nagar, Amravati
Distt. Amravati.
3. Anil Madhukar Fulke
Aged about 35 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Santoshi Mata Colony, Karanja Lad, Tq.Karanja
Distt. Washim.
4. Vijay Champatrao Nagarale
Aged about 43 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Ujwal Nagar, Near Gadge Baba Mandir,
Yavatmal.
5. Prakesh Sakharam Thakare
Aged about 37 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. IUDP Colony, Near Mahakali Mandir Washim
Distt. Washim.
6. Niraj Dashrath Ukande
Aged about 40 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Balaji Nagar-1, Buypass Karanja Lad,
Distt. Washim.
7. Amol Ambadas Thakre
Aged about 33 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Sharda Gruh Nirman Society, Opp. Bal Udhyan
Nandura Road, Jalgaon Jamod
Distt. Buldhana.
8. Onkar Rmadas Zungre
Aged about 34 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Mauli Nagar, Zakal Wadi Road, Gore Layout,
Lakhala, Washim, Tq. & Distt. Washim.
9. Rajesh Lalsingh Rathod
Aged about 33 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Near MIDC Yavatmal, Highway Pusad
Dist. Yavatmal.
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
25
10. Pradeep Narayanrao Kogde
Aged about 31 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Post Rahit (SAHIT), Tq. Barshitakli
Distt. Akola.
11. Chetan Umesh Wankahde
Aged about 28 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Kawala Janhangir, Post- Patur Nandapur
Tq. Murtizapur, Distt. Akola.
12. Nishikant Narayanrao Tawalare
Aged about 32 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Akol Kheda, Post Akot
Distt. Akola.
13. Nilam Vishnupanta Bhise
Aged about 27 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Congress Nagar, Chichali Road, Sundar Kheda
Tq. and Distt. Buldhana.
14. Nitin Sudhakarrao Fursule
Aged about 27 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Balaji Nagar, Part-II, Near Wandevi Mandir,
Byepass, Karanja Lad
Distt- Washim.
15. Sachin Rameshrao Deshmukh
Aged about 29 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Post Pailpada Tq. And Dist. Akola
16. Santosh Vishwanath Sawarkar
Aged about 40 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Renuka Nagar, Lane No.2, Dabki Road
Akola, Tq. and Dist. Akola.
17. Santosh Jankiram Chavan
Aged about 35 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. C/O. Shaligram Rathod, Post Gawandgaon
Tq. Patur, Distt. Akola.
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
26
18. Gajanan Kisanrao Khade
Aged about 42 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. New Sonkhas Byepass Road, Mangrulpir
Distt Washim.
19. Sunil Rameshwar Paithane
Aged about 35 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Mahavir Nagar, Ward No.23, Buldhana
Tq. and Distt. Buldhana.
20. Sagar Shashikant Kamble
Aged about 26 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. At Post Junnar, Near Panchayat Samity
Tq. Junnar, Distt. Pune. ........ PETITIONERS.
VERSUS.
1. State Of Maharashtra
Through Its Secretary
Ministry Of Rural Development
Department, Bandkam Bhavan,
7th Floor, Marzban Road,
Mumbai
2. Maharashtra Rural Roads Development
Association, Through Its Chairman And
Chief Secretary Of State Of Maharashtra
Rural Development And Water Conservation
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. Superintending Engineer,
Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna
and Maharashtra Rural Road Development
Association, Commissioner Office,
2nd Floor, Amravati.
4. Executive Engineer,
Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
27
and Maharashtra Rural Roads
Development Association,
Old Zilla Parishad Premises,
Washim.
5. Zilla Parishad
Through Its Chief Executive Officer
Zilla Parishad, Washim. ...... RESPONDENTS.
WITH
(8) WRIT PETITION No. 2739 OF 2015.
1. Vinod Mahadeorao Khandare
Aged about 40 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. VHB Colony, Malkapur
Tq. And Dist. Akola
2. Prashant Vishwanath Dhawale
Aged about 38 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Gayatri Nagar, Kaulkhed Akola
Tq. And Distt. Akola.
3. Vijay Dhondupant Thakare
Aged about 43 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Trimurti Apartment Jatharpeth, Akola
Tq. And Distt. Akola.
4. Amitkumar Vijayrao Tirpude
Aged about 26 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Tar Fail Ramdaspeth Akola
Tq. And Distt. Akola.
5. Shankar Manikrao Ingle
Aged about 31 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Pramod Nagar, Kaulkhed,
Near BSNL Office, Akola,
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
28
Tq. And Distt. Akola.
6. Sandip Maroti Shivrame
Aged about 36 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. 93, Amrut Nagar, Jalamb Road, Khamgaon
Tq. Khamgaon, Distt. Buldhana.
7. Vilas Ramkrishna Gole
Aged about 36 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Takli Khurd Post Cohatta Bazar
Tq. Akot, distt. Akola.
8. Ganesh Janardhan Bhavane
Aged about 39 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Z.P. Nagar, C-38, Khadki, Post-Gandhi Nagar
Distt. Akola.
9. Avianash Gajanan Chavan
Aged about 26 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Kawatha, Post- Bahadura
Tq. And Distt. Akola.
10. Sagar Onkar Dange
Aged about 33 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Near Ice Factory Kela Plots, Jatharpeth
Akola.
11. Jayprakash Murlidhar Bhirade
Aged about 26 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Netaji Square, Post Mundgaon
Tq. Akot, Distt. Akola.
12. Sachin Bandurao Chaudhary
Aged about 27 years, Occ - Service,
R/O Usha Colony, Akoli Road, Sai Nagar
Amravati.
13. Vijay Bhimrao Dhawade
Aged about 47 years, Occ - Service,
R/O Mothi Umari Akola ........ PETITIONERS.
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
29
VERSUS.
1. State Of Maharashtra
Through Its Secretary
Ministry Of Rural Development
Department, Bandkam Bhavan,
7th Floor, Marzban Road,
Mumbai
2. Maharashtra Rural Roads Development
Association, Through Its Chairman And
Chief Secretary Of State Of Maharashtra
Rural Development And Water Conservation
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. Superintending Engineer,
Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna
and Maharashtra Rural Road Development
Association, Commissioner Office,
2nd Floor, Amravati.
4. Executive Engineer,
Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna
and Maharashtra Rural Roads
Development Association,
Old RDG Girls College,
Akola, Tq. and Distt. Akola.
5. Zilla Parishad
Through Its Chief Executive Officer
Zilla Parishad, Akola. ...... RESPONDENTS.
WITH
(9) WRIT PETITION No. 2740 OF 2015.
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
30
1. Sheshrao Mahadeorao Kharat
Aged about 41 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Satyam Apartment, Flat No. 304 Law
College Road, Sundarkehd, Buldhana.
2. Deepak Barsu Badhe
Aged about 25 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Borakhedi Tq. Motala
Distt. Buldhana.
3. Pramod Rambhau Raut
Aged about 35 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Durga Nagar, Nandura, Tq. Nandura
Distt. Buldhana.
4. Mahesh Dagadu Marathe
Aged about 35 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Shivaji Nagar, Malkapur
Tq. Malkapur, Distt. Buldhana.
5. Ku. Deepali Ramesh Chandore
Aged about 27 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Ward No.3, Raut Wadi, Near Bus Stand,
Chikhali, Tq. Chikhali, Dist. Buldhana.
6. Dhananjay Dattatraya Dange
Aged about 28 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. C/O. Shyam Bhalerao, Shivneri Nagar,
Near Kamgar Kalyan Kendra, Buldhana
Tq. And Distt. Buldhana.
7. Mahesh Gajanan Gajghane
Aged about 28 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Sirasgaon (Deshmukh), Tq. Khamgaon
Distt. Buldhana.
8. Sujata Mahadeorao Gawande
Aged about 30 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Shraya Safalya, Deshmukh Plot Behind School
No. 6, Khamgaon, Distt. Buldhana.
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:43 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
31
9. Sachin Sanjay Gite
Aged about 24 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Gondhan Khed, Tq. Deulgaon (RAJA)
Distt. Buldhana.
10. Mahesh Prakash Jaiswal
Aged about 30 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Ghatpuri Naka, Khamgaon
Tq. Khamgaon, Distt. Buldhana.
11. Kailash Shivaji Jaybhaye
Aged about 28 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Palaskhed Kanhagir,
Tq. Lonar, Distt. Buldhana.
12. Mahendra Shrirang Jogdand,
Aged about 28 years, Occ - Service,
r/o. Sambhaji Chowk Nanded
Tq. And distt. Nanded.
13. Madhuri Tulshiram Shinde
Aged about 29 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Mali Nagar, Nandura Road, Khamgaon
Tq. Khamgaon, Distt. Buldhana.
14. Samadham Ramkrushna Warade
Aged about 29 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Mera (BK), Tq. Chikhali
Distt Buldhana.
15. Priti Bhujangrao Nande
Aged about 35 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. C/O Santosh Namdeorao Sable, Sai Nagar,
Behind Ekta Nagar, Sagwan, Buldhana,
Distt. Buldhana.
16. Manoj Devidas Tekade
Aged about 32 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Rajeshwar Nagar, Sagwan Area,
Old Ajijpur Road, Buldhana,
Tq. And Distt. Buldhana.
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:44 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
32
17. Jaisingh Narayansing Kurkunje
Aged about 34 years, Occ - Service,
R/O. Agrasen Marg. Near Old Nagar Palika Chow,
Deulgaon Raja, Tq. Deulgaon Raja
Distt. Buldhana. ........ PETITIONERS.
VERSUS.
1. State Of Maharashtra
Through Its Secretary
Ministry Of Rural Development
Department, Bandkam Bhavan,
7th Floor, Marzban Road,
Mumbai
2. Maharashtra Rural Roads Development
Association, Through Its Chairman And
Chief Secretary Of State Of Maharashtra
Rural Development And Water Conservation
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. Superintending Engineer,
Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna
and Maharashtra Rural Road Development
Association, Commissioner Office,
2nd Floor, Amravati.
4. Executive Engineer,
Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna
and Maharashtra Rural Roads
Development Association,
Opposite State Bank of India,
Sunderkhed, Chikhali Road,
Buldhana.
5. Zilla Parishad
Through Its Chief Executive Officer
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:44 :::
Judgment wp2388.15
33
Zilla Parishad, Buldhana. ...... RESPONDENTS.
-----------------------------------
Mr. R.L. Khapre, Advocate for petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 2388, 2771,
2773, 2781 & 2794 of 2015.
Mr. C.S. Kaptan, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.P. Kalmegh, Advocate for
Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2705/2015.
Mr. J.B. Gandhi, Advocate for Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 2738, 2739
and 2740 of 2015.
Mr. S.V. Manohar, Senior Advocate with Mrs. B.H. Dangre,
Government Pleader for Respondent - State.
Mr. P.V. Thakre, Advocate for Respondent no.5 ( in W.P.No.2388/2015).
------------------------------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
& P.N. DESHMUKH , JJ.
Date of Reserving the Judgment : 23.04.2016.
Date of Pronouncement : 06.05.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)
By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
petitioners seek declaration that condition in their appointment order or
restricting tenure of their appointments be declared as bad. They seek a
direction to regularize their services from the date of their appointment, and
to extend them pay-scales as mentioned in Government Resolutions dated
Judgment wp2388.15
24.01.2007, 22.01.2010 and 13.03.2013. Prayers have been later on
amended to seek regularization in services of Zilla Parishad and for quashing
circular dated 14.09.2015 by which the respondents wanted to proceed with
the recruitment. This Court has on 24.04.2014, after noticing interim orders
passed at Aurangabad Bench in Writ Petition No.4465/2014, directed the
respondents not to take any steps to their prejudice and said interim orders
continue to operate even today. On 14.10.2015, this Court also ordered
that if any steps to fill in vacancies in respective respondent no. 5 Zilla
Parishads were initiated, petitioners would be entitled to apply for
consideration of their claim for regularization.
2. It appears that efforts were being made to dispose of the Writ
Petition finally at the stage of admission as respondents pointed out that
similar challenge was dismissed by the Aurangabad Bench of this Court
while considering Writ Petition Nos. 4896 and 4988 of 2015 on 07.05.2015.
3. Accordingly, we have heard Shri R.L. Khapre, learned Counsel for
the petitioners and Shri Sunil Manohar, learned Senior Advocate with Mrs.
B.H. Dangre, learned Government Pleader for State of Maharashtra and its
officers. Shri P. Thakare, learned Counsel has argued the matter on behalf
of respondent Zilla Parishad, Wardha.
Judgment wp2388.15
4. As State Government has raised preliminary objection, we have
heard Shri Manohar, Senior Counsel first. He has taken us through various
pleadings in the memo of writ petition to urge that the challenge is to the
scheme essentially formulated by the Union of India and being implemented
by the State of Maharashtra through respondent no.2 Association
constituted/formed as per the directions of the Union of India. The
"Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna" (PMGSY), is a special Scheme evolved
by the Union of India, and is being financed by it, in the interest of Rural
people. The scheme is essentially temporary in nature and the respondent
no.1 State Government or then the Zilla Parishads do not have any say about
the terms and conditions subject to which the scheme functions. He points
out that there is no prayer seeking regularization or absorption in any
service with State Government and a prayer to absorb in the employment of
respective Zilla Parishads has been added by amendment. He has invited
our attention to various clauses in the scheme and to contention of
petitioners that it is necessary to lift veil of incorporation. He submits that
respondent no.2 is created as per the directions of the Central Government
and if veil is to be lifted, in this situation, Union of India is an essential
party. He submits that lifting of veil, and therefore, holding that the
arrangement as evolved is, sham or bogus, essentially pertains to domain of
Judgment wp2388.15
appreciation of disputed facts. Facts cannot be ascertained without hearing
Union of India and without giving the party an opportunity to produce
evidence. He heavily relies upon the orders passed at Aurangabad on
07.05.2015, to seek dismissal of Writ Petitions on this ground.
5. Shri Khapre, learned Counsel states that in order to understand
the exact nature of challenge and to point out how Union of India is not
necessary party, it is necessary to look into the fundamentals of the scheme,
the provisions of Constitution of India, responsibility cast upon Panchayat
Raj System thereby and obligations of Zilla Parishads under Maharashtra
Zilla Parishad and Panchayat and Panchayat Samities Act, 1961 and role of
District Planning Authority. He states that when all this is considered
together, it becomes clear that the construction of roads is a State subject as
per Constitution and duty of either State or Zilla Parishad. Central
Government is only releasing funds for said purpose and through those
funds, roads are being constructed. He does not dispute that the respondent
no.2 is constituted and registered as a Society, as directed by the Central
Government, however, he invites attention to its composition to show that it
is nothing, but, State Government. Aims and objects as also bye laws of
respondent no.2 are pressed into service to urge that it is State Government
which is acting indirectly through respondent no.2. He relies upon bye law
Judgment wp2388.15
no.34 to show that dissolution of society is possible only with the prior
approval of State Government.
6. Though, Union of India releases funds for construction of roads,
salary or wages of employees is the responsibility of the State Government.
Our attention is invited to "concept paper" to urge that even therein duty of
State Government to construct and maintain road is accepted. The actual
cost of construction of road is shouldered 50% each by Central Government
as also State Government. Thus, for money invested by State Government,
equal amount is also invested for road construction by the Central
Government. In this situation, according to him, the Central Government is
not a necessary party. He has relied upon Section 5 of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 to demonstrate how property of Society vests. Bye
law Nos. 13.2, 13.4, 13.5.4, 13.5.7 as also provisions contained in Bye law
no.34 are heavily relied upon by him to urge that the respondent no.2
Society is nothing, but, an agent of the State Government. It is a nodal
agency to monitor the entire scheme.
7. Vision document is also relied upon for this purpose. Our
attention is drawn to provisions of Chapter 14.3, Chapter 11 to point out
that the planning of roads is left to State Government only and it is co-
Judgment wp2388.15
related and coordinated with 5 years development plan. It is therefore,
perpetual work. Provisions contained in Chapter 19 are relied upon for this
purpose. Chapter 40 is also pressed into service to urge that maintenance of
road is an essential facet of entire PMGSY. The road is to be completed in
stipulated time, and thereafter, maintained by a contractor for initial period
of 5 years, thereafter duty of it's maintenance and repairs etc., shifts to local
body. According to him, this activity of construction of various roads is to
continue till 2025, and thereafter considering the schedule of maintenance
by a contractor and by the Zilla Parishads, the work of PMGSY has to
continue in any case, upto the year 2042. He therefore, argues that in this
situation, the work is of permanent and perennial nature. He submits that
the District Panchayats play an important role in the entire scheme.
8. Our attention is invited to Central Government Road Fund Act,
2000 and the schedule appended thereto, as also 2007 Rules framed
thereunder. The levy or surcharge is recovered on sale of petrol/diesel and
that amount goes to Central Government, which ultimately comes to State
Government for constructing and maintaining roads. In view of this
statutory arrangement, Shri Khapre, learned counsel submits that the
Central Government cannot withdraw from the scheme, and as it is the
obligation of the State Government, the Union of India need not be heard in
Judgment wp2388.15
challenge of this type. Rules framed in 2014 in this respect are also relied
upon to point out that rural roads are covered therein.
9. To buttress his submissions, he has invited our attention to entry
no.23 in List I of Schedule VII. Entry nos. 5 and 13 of List II of Schedule VII
of Constitution of India, Article 243G, 11th Schedule (entry No.13) and
Section 100 of Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961
are also heavily relied upon. He submits that after 73rd amendment to
Constitution of India, obligation or duty of Zilla Parishad to maintain rural
roads cannot be compromised in any way. These rural roads are ultimately
linked to district roads as per Master Plan and therefore, District Planning
Committee plays an important role in this respect.
10. As respondent no.2 is a Society and an independent person, it is
not amenable to jurisdiction of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. It is
pointed out that the recruitment is at the level of Zilla Parishad and for that
on 08.11.2006, the State Government, through its Chief Engineer (PMGSY)
and Authorized Officer, has undertaken exercise of creating one post of
Deputy Engineer and 5 posts of Junior Engineer in 33 Zilla Parishads in the
State of Maharashtra. Our attention is drawn to the fact that accordingly
recruitment has been made at Zilla Parishad level and hence, there is no
Judgment wp2388.15
privity of contract between the petitioners and Union of India.
Advertisement for recruitment published on 24.01.2007 for the first time in
this respect is also relied upon. Terms and conditions of appointment are
also pressed into service by him. He contends that paying consolidated wage
to petitioners is an arbitrary and high handed act. Our attention is also
drawn to the Government Resolution issued on 28.02.2011 to urge that the
pay scales to which the petitioners are entitled, are mentioned therein. He
contends that when State Government found that petitioners were receiving
comparatively lesser wages than other contract employees, upward revision
was ordered by the State Government on 20.06.2012. He states that when
work is of perennial nature, and permanent staff is necessary, appointing
petitioners on consolidated pay is a dishonest act violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. He contends that the State Government has
mislead Union of India by sending it wrong documents and information.
Schedule with Government Resolution dated 13.03.2013, is also relied upon
by him to drive home this contention.
11. Inviting attention to the mode and manner in which petitioners
have been selected through proper advertisement, roster point, interview
etc., he contends that the officers who performed that exercise were and are
competent to effect recruitment even in Zilla Parishad employment. The
Judgment wp2388.15
Discipline and Appeal Rules of Zilla Parishad are applicable to them and the
recruitment has been made as per the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad( District
Services) Recruitment Rules, 1967. Accordingly they have been appointed
on probation for a period of one year. Even requirement of roaster to satisfy
the reservation policy as per constitutional mandate, has been taken care of.
His effort is to demonstrate that all legal formalities to effect recruitment to
a permanent post in Zilla Parishad have been satisfied while recruiting
petitioners, but, malafidely they have been given appointment order on
contract basis for a limited period. He points out that after PMGSY-I
Scheme, PMGSY-II Scheme is also announced for the year 2013-14. Our
attention is drawn to a bid document for that year published for District
Wardha. Learned counsel submits that up-gradation of roads and
maintenance for 5 years under PMGSY is now being outsourced.
12. According to Shri Khapre, learned counsel, under PMGSY Scheme,
last road can be laid till 2026-27, and as per time bound schedule of
allocation of responsibilities of maintenance, it would be completed by
2034. Work of or allocation of responsibilities of maintenance etc. of 10
years thereafter would expire after 2042. Thus, for next 26-27 years the
work is available. Therefore this work is assured, constitutional obligation of
Zilla Parishads/State Government, and hence appointment has to be on
Judgment wp2388.15
permanent basis. He states that right to a road is a fundamental right of a
citizen.
13. According to him, a parallel establishment has been created to
victimize the petitioners, and it is unbecoming on the part of the model
employer like Zilla Parishad and State Government. He submits that
contract of service of petitioners has to be in consonance with Article 14,19
and 21 of the Constitution of India. Document filed as Annexure-36 with
Writ Petition No. 2388/2015 is shown to this Court to point out that large
number of vacancies in regular and permanent establishment of various Zilla
Parishads. It is submitted that number of petitioners before this Court is less
than total Group 'C' and 'D' vacancies available in Vidarbha Region for
undertaking construction of such roads or their maintenance.
14. Communication dated 03.07.2015, sent by the State Government
to various Chief Executive Officers of Zilla Parishads is also read out to show
that out of total 13 Posts of Junior Engineers, sanction was given to fill in 8
posts by following prevalent procedure on contract basis. Remaining 5
posts were directed to be filled in by deputing Junior Engineers on the
establishment of Zilla Parishad. Thus, for regular and permanent nature of
work to be performed by the Zilla Parishad, body like respondent no.2 has
Judgment wp2388.15
been formed. Permanent staff with Zilla Parishad with duty to construct and
maintain roads is being shifted to respondent no.2 and additional staff is
being appointed on contract basis. He therefore, states that this is nothing
but, abuse of its power by the State Government and exploitation of poor
and helpless petitioners.
15. Inviting attention to government resolution dated 18.05.2015, it is
contended that in furtherance of very same object, a scheme by name "Chief
Minister Rural Roads Development Scheme" has been formulated and,
unconstitutional and illegal treatment extended to petitioners is being
continued. He submits that under said scheme, there is a direction to absorb
only earthquake affected staff. Circular published by the State Government
on 14.09.2015, for filling in vacant post with Zilla Parishads is also
challenged by him by urging that it shows availability of permanent/regular
vacancies and also work, instead of absorbing petitioners against those
vacancies and allowing them to work, new persons are sought to be
recruited with oblique motive. Section 253-BB of Zilla Parishad Act is
pressed into service to urge that the petitioners cannot be rendered surplus
and to show that Zilla Parishad is planning authority and it's role in Original
Development Plan and District Plan. Support is being taken from Section 14
and other provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,
Judgment wp2388.15
1966.
16. It is pointed out that as petitioners are helpless, they are
victimized have been continued in the employment on such terms and
conditions as dictated by the State Government. The terms and conditions
are unconstitutional and deserve to be struck down. AIR 1986 SC 1571(1)
(Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd and another .vrs.
Brojo Nath Ganguly and another), is relied upon by him to support this
contention. He further contends that the petitioners have put in continuous
service of more than one year, and therefore, have also completed
satisfactorily period of probation of one year stipulated in the recruitment
rules of Zilla Parishad. As such, they must be deemed to have become
permanent. He invites attention to law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in AIR 1988 SC 286 (M.K. Agrawal .vrs. Gurgaon Gramin Bank
and others), AIR 1991 SC 1681 (1) (Uptron India Ltd. .vrs. Shammi
Bhan and another), for this purpose. He submits that model employer
cannot make any distinction between the temporary and permanent
employees in such a situation. (2013) 14 SCC 64 (Nihal Singh and
others .vrs. State of Punjab and others), is relied upon by him to buttress
this submission, to demonstrate that fundamental rights cannot be waived
and estoppel cannot operate in this case. He relies upon AIR 1986 SC 180
Judgment wp2388.15
(Olga Tellis and others .vrs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others),
to support his contention that State government cannot also raise plea of
acquiescence in such matters. AIR 1986 SC 847 (1) (State of H.P. And
another .vrs. Umed Ram Sharma and others), is also relied upon to plead
that duty to construct road is fundamental duty and right to road is a
fundamental right of a citizen. 2015 (4) ABR 119 (High Court on its
Motion .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others), is pressed into service to
show that repairs and maintenance of road is also an obligation of the State
Government.
17. Without prejudice to his preliminary objection already noted
supra, Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel states that here the State
Government is duty bound to function as per the guidelines issued by the
Central Government. PMGSY is the scheme of Central Government, and as
per that scheme the Central Government has on 08.01.2003 directed the
State Government to constitute a separate body/society to undertake the
work of PMGSY. As per that letter, and under that Scheme, the State
Government in the interest of residents of State constituted respondent no.2.
The object of the Society (respondent no.2) is to join all un-connected
habitations having population of more than 500 and, 250 if such habitation
is placed in hilly area. Rules and Regulations (bye laws) or memorandum
Judgment wp2388.15
of association of respondent no.2 is also pressed into service to show
extensive control of Union of India. Obligations of respondent no.2 are
prescribed by Union of India only. Provisions of Rule 25 and Rule 25.1 are
also pressed into service to show determinative role of Union of India in the
matter.
18. By inviting attention to various government resolutions, it is
pointed out that PMGSY is seen as a temporary scheme by the State
Government, and accordingly keeping this in mind, best possible efforts to
take its maximum benefit have been made. This perception that it is
temporary scheme, is based on material on record and not perverse. It is
contended that pleadings in petition are based upon incomplete information
and documents. It is further pointed out that all advertisements under the
scheme show nature of appointment to be on contract basis, and on
consolidated pay. It is contended that only petitioner no.1 and petitioner
no.2 have put in few years of service, while the remaining petitioners are
fresh recruits. Posts have been created on 24.01.2001 on temporary basis
and are being continued from time to time. Various documents on record
granting such extension are also shown to us. Shri Manohar, learned Senior
Counsel submits that all advertisements are on contract basis, and
appointments are for a period of 11 months. State Government has
Judgment wp2388.15
specifically asked its officers and Zilla Parishads to see that no other work be
given to petitioners. Petitioner no.1 was appointed in the year 2007, when
198 posts were sanctioned under the scheme. Petitioner no.2 entered the
scheme in the year 2010, when 1091 posts were sanctioned, other
petitioners have joined in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Our attention is drawn to
reply and chart filed by the State Government to show the extent of work
accomplished under the scheme. By placing reliance upon paragraph no.3 of
affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 vide stamp no.
6729/2015, it is submitted that most of the work is already over and very
small part thereof is now left. Details of kilometers completed are given in
paragraph no.4, and extent left out is given in paragraph no.6. It is
submitted that after this small part of work is over, the scheme will be closed
in less then two years. It is further pointed out that as per the directions
given by the Union of India only roads to the extent of 4094 kms. in length
are to be built in less than two years, but, funds could not be made available.
It is further pointed out that the Chief Minister Rural Road Development
Scheme is still not implemented, and nobody can be absorbed in it. Also the
petitioners cannot legally be absorbed thereunder.
19. Photocopy of a State government file containing notes and records
leading to creation of posts, is pressed into service to show that no where
Judgment wp2388.15
scheme has been seen as a permanent scheme and work has never been seen
as perennial work by the State Government. It is contended that as directed
by the Central Government, the scheme is being implemented by creating
respondent no.2-Society, and at ground level it is Zilla Parishad which
monitors its execution. Our attention is also drawn to a chart submitted by
the petitioners along with their petition to show the duration of service of
each petitioner.
20. Our attention is invited to communication dated 02.05.2013 to
urge that in PMGSY -II Scheme, road length of 2062 kms., is available. It is
a distinct scheme of Union of India than PMGSY scheme under which the
petitioners are functioning. Up-gradation of roads is the object and as
envisaged therein, State Government invited tenders for such up-gradation
through on-line bid dated 22.02.2014 at Annexure-32. It is submitted that
service of petitioners cannot be used for this distinct purpose. Average life
of such roads is 10 years and the State Government has to maintain roads
after 5 years, as per Chapter 14 of the PMGSY Scheme.
21. Our attention is invited to a judgment reported at AIR 1999 SC
923 (Rajendra and others .vrs. State of Rajasthan and others),
particularly paragraph nos.1, 10 and 13 therein to point out how present
Judgment wp2388.15
controversy need to be dealt with. (1992) 4 SCC 99 (Delhi Development
Horticulture Employees Union .vrs. Delhi Administration, Delhi and
others), (2003) 5 SCC 388 (MD, U.P. Land Development Corporation
and another .vrs. Amar Singh and others), are also relied upon to urge
that there cannot be any permanent appointment in such a scheme. (2007)
2 SCC 513 (Lal Mohammad and others .vrs. Indian Railway
Construction Co. Ltd. and others), is pressed into service to urge that
there cannot be regularization in temporary scheme.
22. Heavy reliance is placed upon judgment delivered at Aurangabad
on 07.05.2015 in Writ Petition No. 4986/2015. It is contended that there
very same scheme and challenge was under consideration, and if a
different view is to be reached, the matter needs to be referred to Larger
Bench. Support is being taken from (2015) 8 SCC 129 (P. Susella and
others .vrs. University Grants Commission and others) for this purpose.
It is further submitted that after adjudication by the Aurangabad Bench, no
representation has been preferred and no demands were made, therefore, no
relief can be given in the present Writ Petitions. (2016) 2 SCC 653 (D.N.
Jeevaraj .vrs. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka and others )
particularly paragraph nos. 38 to 40 thereof are relied upon for this purpose.
Judgment wp2388.15
23. Shri Thakare, learned Counsel on behalf of the Zilla Parishad,
adopts the argument of Shri Manohar, learned Senior Counsel. He contends
that as all advertisements were for filling in posts on contract basis and on
fixed salary, several more qualified aspirants did not apply, and hence,
petitioners cannot be absorbed in this manner. According to him, adhering
to qualifications or following the procedure prescribed in recruitment rules,
and maintaining roaster, are normal considerations in public employment
and adherence therewith does not clothe the petitioners with any right to
posts.
24. In his reply arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners states
that perusal of the complete vision document reveals that work envisaged
therein is of permanent nature and to be performed by either State
Government or Zilla Parishad. It is contended that note sheets produced by
the State Government show that the State Government has not honoured the
confidence placed in it by the Union of India, and it is paying less salary to
petitioners. It is pointed out that the State Government has to employ its
own staff and that staff must get proper salary and service conditions. The
complete scheme document is pressed into service to show the phases in
which work progresses. It is urged that PMGSY-I and PMGSY-II are
complementary to each other. It is further submitted that as per page 7
Judgment wp2388.15
Clause 31 of this complete scheme document, it is co-related with 13th 5
year plan and adherence to Labour Laws is must. The roads vest in District
Panchayat and unnecessarily temporary posts have been created when it is
permanent job of Zilla Parishad. Shri Khapre, learned Counsel submits that
the first letter of State Government to the Union of India does not mention
the appointments as on contract basis and stipulates regular pay scales. This
has been done with an oblique motive to induce Union of India to part with
funds/grants.
25. Shri Khapre, learned Counsel submits that in present matters, all
three conditions stipulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Secretary,
State of Karnataka .vrs. Umadevi (AIR 2006 SC 1806) are satisfied, and
hence deletion of one condition from appointment order of petitioners is
sufficient to grant them complete relief. By way of abundant precaution, he
adds that this court has to decide whether the petitioners can be absorbed in
employment of State Government or then Zilla Parishads. .
26. He points out that in Writ Petitions, commencement of work under
Chief Minister Rural Road Development Scheme is, specifically asserted on
affidavit and it has not been denied Our attention is invited to Annexure 41,
which is a government resolution dated 18.05.2011, whereby sanction has
Judgment wp2388.15
been given to a account head in that scheme. It is however, submitted that
arrangements made are exactly as per PMGSY Scheme. It is pointed out that
Union of India has allotted amount of Rs. 19,000 Crores in the financial year
2016-17 and hence, the funds are very much available. Shri Khapre, learned
Counsel submits that very same work therefore, continues. AIR 2008 SC
876 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .vrs. Nusli Neville Wadia and
another) is pressed into service by him to urge that in this situation, for
present purposes, purposive interpretation must be adopted and provisions
contained in Rule 6 of the Zilla Parishad (District Recruitment) Rules, must
be read accordingly.
27. After careful deliberations, we find merit in preliminary objection
raised by the State. As Union of India is not before us, We restrict our
consideration to put forth the reasons for this conclusion.
28. From arguments of parties, it is apparent that funds are coming
from Central Government i.e. from Union of India under a Scheme which is
styled as Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna. PMGSY-II or Chief Minister
Rural Road Development Scheme are subsequent schemes. Petitioners do
not seek any declaration in relation to Chief Minister's Rural Road
Development Scheme. Paragraph no.2 of the writ petition shows that the
Judgment wp2388.15
Central Government prepared a plan for construction of roads in order to
connect all villages by road. These roads are supposed to be usable all the
year round and PMGSY was accordingly declared on 25.12.2000. It is
stated that the respondent no.1 in order to further implement this scheme
established respondent no.2. However, respondent no.1 has established that
as per this government resolution dated 08.05.2003, because of mandate of
said PMGSY Scheme, it has to constitute respondent no.2. Respondent no.2
has been registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act. This
disclosure by the respondent no.1 has not been disputed by the petitioners.
Memorandum of Association or bye laws of respondent no.2 are on record,
and role of Union of India or Central Government in the implementation of
PMGSY scheme is apparent from it. Entire fund comes from Central
Government, but, day to day activity is to be managed by the respondent
no.2. Petitioners contend that though nature of work under PMGSY is
permanent, in order to deny them the benefit of permanency, State
Government for the first time, under Circular 24.08.2011 mentioned that
these posts are temporary in nature. According to them, scheme has to last
maximum for 25 years and at least till the year 2041, as stated in paragraph
no.19 of the Writ Petition.
29. The bye laws or Memorandum of Association of respondent no.2
Judgment wp2388.15
at Annexure-4 shows that it has got an independent governing body and
executive committee. The governing body has to administer and manage the
affairs as per the guidelines formulated by the Government of India. As per
Clause 13, it has to receive funds from Ministry of Rural Development,
Government of India. Property vests in Governing body as per guidelines
issued by the Government of India, and if any amendment to Rules becomes
necessary, it has to be as per the guidelines issued by the Government of
India. As per Rule 34, Governing body can dissolve respondent no.2 with
prior approval of the State Government. The corpus and management of
society after dissolution vests in State Government. Material on record
reveals that funds are released by the Central Government every year and
that release cannot be controlled by the State Government or any Zilla
Parishad. Petitioners have urged that the Central Government cannot
withdraw from such scheme, however, in absence of Central Government or
Union of India, as party before this Court, we cannot pronounce upon it. On
the contrary, it appears that it is the respondent no.2 who has proceeded to
implement the scheme, and for it, the staff is provided by authorized officer
and Chief Engineer (PMGSY) of State Government. Communication dated
08.11.2006, in this respect clearly points out that posts were to be filled in
on contract basis for one year on consolidated salary. Advertisements have
also been published accordingly.
Judgment wp2388.15
30. Life of posts has been thereafter extended every year by the State
Government. Initially only 198 posts were created, but, perusal of
government resolution dated 22.01.2010 shows that number of posts was
increased to 1091, and their tenure was extended upto 28.02.2010.
31. Though petitioners contend that State Government has misled
Union of India by suppressing from it, the fact that it has provided staff on
contract basis, we find material on record insufficient to conclude
accordingly. The communications on which the petitioners have placed
reliance specifically mention pay scale which is admissible against each
post., State also points out the consolidated pay being paid to the
incumbent. The relevant documents like government resolutions dated
20.02.2011, 10.02.2012, 13.03.2013 specifically mentions posts to be
temporary. When the Central Government is not releasing any grants for
payment of salary to this staff, the contention of petitioners that State
Government has misled Central Government in this respect, is without any
substance. If the petitioners wanted to demonstrate that Central Government
was dwelling under wrong impression, and therefore was induced to release
the funds, they ought to have approached the Central Government with this
grievance. They ought to have impleaded the Union Of India as party
Judgment wp2388.15
respondent to bring on record the alleged fraud played on it.
32. The Scheme is formulated by the Central Government and it is
releasing funds to State Government. As directed by the Central
Government, respondent no.2 has been constituted as a separate
society/body to actually execute the works with the assistance of various
Zilla Parishads. In this situation, if we have to consider various legal
provisions, including the provisions of Constitution of India and Labour Laws
or other welfare provisions. Effective adjudication in this respect is not
possible without hearing Union of India. Funds which can be released to
State Government and to Zilla Parishads for discharging their statutory or
constitutional obligations are and must be distinct from the funds released
under PMGSY. The petitioners have not pointed out that except for works
under PMGSY, no work of road construction is being undertaken by any Zilla
Parishad or by State Government. Whether funds released under PMGSY
are additional funds with a particular object in mind and Central
Government (Union of India) is competent to release such funds for
construction of year-round usable roads in rural parts of India is the cardinal
issue. If petitioners are correct, we have to hold that the work is available
perennially, and hence, Union of India is under obligation to release grants
therefor forever. However, that does not appear to be the scheme. Boost to
Judgment wp2388.15
rural economy and therefore connecting otherwise small and remote rural
habitations is the object of Central Government. We can not find fault with
this object behind the back of Union Of India. We cannot expect Union of
India to release such funds for all times to time without hearing it. State
Government can not force the Union Of India to provide the money for ever
or for particular rural or other road. The State can not also assail the scheme
as framed or policy decision of the Union of India. State can not amend the
scheme by urging that its constitutional obligation is being encroached upon
by the Union Of India. It can not refuse to form a society like respondent 2.
33. Source from which the funds are arranged or should have been
procured by the Union of India, how or under what head or for which
purpose such funds should have been released by the Union Of India,
duration of such release, the collusion, if any, between State Government or
Union of India, alleged design to cheat the employees like petitioners are
some of the relevant factors which can not be looked into by us in absence of
the Union Of India. Declaration that PMGSY is sham or bogus devise,
exercise to lift the veil of incorporation to find out whether State
Government or Zilla Parishad is real employer all warrant an opportunity of
hearing to the Central Government. Even impact of alleged similar challenge
Judgment wp2388.15
on present adjudication and dismissal of Writ Petition Nos. 4896 and 4988
of 2015 by the Aurangabad Bench of this Court on 07.05.2015 can not be
effectively looked into behind the back of Union Of India. No financial
burden or the obligation can be cast upon Central Government directly or
indirectly in this adjudication. No discussion either on law or on fact can be
undertaken without Union Of India. The petitioners did not get wise though
the preliminary objection was raised and argued at length by Shri Manohar,
learned Senior Counsel.
34. We therefore, find that the preliminary objection raised by the State
Government is just, proper and sustainable. Upholding the same, we dismiss
these writ petitions, for not joining Union of India as a party respondent. No
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
35. At this stage, Shri Khapre and Shri Kalmegh, learned Counsel for the
petitioners seek continuation of the interim orders for a period of three
months to enable the petitioners to take further appropriate steps. The said
request is being opposed by Shri Fulzele, learned Addl. G.P. as also Shri
Judgment wp2388.15
Thakare, learned Counsel for respondents.
36. The petitioners are being continued since long and interim orders
granted by this Court are operative. Even when matters were argued, the
respondents have pointed out that work may continue for some time in
future.
37.
In this situation, we continue the interim orders for a period of
three months more from today. The same shall cease to operate
automatically thereafter.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd
